Cliff Grays Podcast with Aaron Davidson

[Jhconnected]

That’s it. This calls for Gunwerk’s/Revic’s Acura RS25i scope to be tested by Form himself!!!

Lol

 

[wnelson14]

That’s it. This calls for Gunwerk’s/Revic’s Acura RS25i scope to be tested by Form himself!!!

Lol

this one?

Post in thread 'Revic 5-25x50mm Field Evaluation'

Sunday at 1:09 PM

Illumination: Push button illumination.

5x on max illumination-


25x max illum-


On max illumination there is some bleed. On low setting, none at all-




Drop Evaluation RTZ and “Tracking”:

For an explanation see- Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards


The “test” consists of three 18” drops on a mat- one left/right/top with a shot to check zero after each drop. Then the exact same thing repeated from 36”. Then three drops on all three sides for nine drops on the last part- 15 drops total. This is not “abuse”. The 18”...

• Formidilosus

• 

 

[Jhconnected]

TLDR: probably some scopes are the same and some aren’t. A drop testing machine is an accurate way to test.

Being someone who works with ODMs but never with LOW (who is probably the optics company he mentions).

The ODM probably owns the IP on the lenses, coatings, and tube assembly. They probably have some base design(s) on a complete scope that is their own design/IP.

I imagine you can buy that IP design and slap your own colored ring/ID on there. Give their coatings your own marketing name, etc. It’s the ODM design. Sig and Maven each had the same binos but with their own ID on them for example.

You can probably have them or your engineers make a new design that may or may not be more robust. Some of this design/IP could be owned by the optic company.

I doubt all the scopes coming out of that ODM are exactly the same.

That’s how I would see it going down with no experience in the optics industry.

As far as drop testing, outside of the tube or turrets getting dented, I think the drop testing machine is probably pretty realistic. You’re worried about the forces experienced and over how long of a time (50G 10ms half sine vs 100G 7 ms half sine, etc). Changing these variables can affect how the energy is experienced by the scope. Dropped on concrete vs fresh snow etc. You want to make sure the impulse on the drop tester mimics real life impacts. This can be measured and replicated.

 

[Jhconnected]

this one?

Post in thread 'Revic 5-25x50mm Field Evaluation'

Sunday at 1:09 PM

Illumination: Push button illumination.

5x on max illumination-


25x max illum-


On max illumination there is some bleed. On low setting, none at all-




Drop Evaluation RTZ and “Tracking”:

For an explanation see- Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards


The “test” consists of three 18” drops on a mat- one left/right/top with a shot to check zero after each drop. Then the exact same thing repeated from 36”. Then three drops on all three sides for nine drops on the last part- 15 drops total. This is not “abuse”. The 18”...

• Formidilosus

• 

The more ya know…


Thanks!

Maybe that drop test machine was worth the $$$!

 

[Bluumoon]

TLDR: probably some scopes are the same and some aren’t. A drop testing machine is an accurate way to test.

Being someone who works with ODMs but never with LOW (who is probably the optics company he mentions).

The ODM probably owns the IP on the lenses, coatings, and tube assembly. They probably have some base design(s) on a complete scope that is their own design/IP.

I imagine you can buy that IP design and slap your own colored ring/ID on there. Give their coatings your own marketing name, etc. It’s the ODM design. Sig and Maven each had the same binos but with their own ID on them for example.

You can probably have them or your engineers make a new design that may or may not be more robust. Some of this design/IP could be owned by the optic company.

I doubt all the scopes coming out of that ODM are exactly the same.

That’s how I would see it going down with no experience in the optics industry.

As far as drop testing, outside of the tube or turrets getting dented, I think the drop testing machine is probably pretty realistic. You’re worried about the forces experienced and over how long of a time (50G 10ms half sine vs 100G 7 ms half sine, etc). Changing these variables can affect how the energy is experienced by the scope. Dropped on concrete vs fresh snow etc. You want to make sure the impulse on the drop tester mimics real life impacts. This can be measured and replicated.

I’ll ask again. How is the machine realistic or useful if it doesn’t replicate known issues?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

podcast wouldn't allow in my snow Mexico region but think I found the YouTube, early in the chat Cliff's ad for some give away stuff comes on and he called Unknown Munitions... 'Unknown Musicians' at 7:17 mark haha, on purpose? what about Magicians?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I'm trained in science - and statistics - and fully understand not only that the drop tests posted here aren't truly/fully 'scientific', but also, much more importantly, that they are likely the closest we'll ever see to valid tests. The fact that you can't put a confidence interval around the results doesn't mean thew results are of no value.

People saying the testing is not scientific have a concept of "science" in their brain based almost entirely on vibes and movies.

 

[Jhconnected]

I’ll ask again. How is the machine realistic or useful if it doesn’t replicate known issues?

Drop test machines are THE standard for reliability testing across all engineering industries. Military specs are written around it to test for durability on everything. Companies do it to ensure billions of dollars of equipment can withstand shipping, normal operation, etc etc.

While engineers try to remove all variables, as does Form, you can’t remove all of them.

Maybe the GW test profile doesn’t mimic Form’s so we see differences. Maybe GW got a golden sample that is super robust or maybe RS gets a lemon. Maybe the rings minutely slipped on Form’s. Maybe the barrel joint shifted or the barrel bent slightly.

I could argue that testing it on a rifle is actually a more inaccurate way even though it’s all screwed and glued together bc you add in variables like the barrel joint, scope to ring interface, ammo, etc.

For the record, I’m not shitting on Forms setup. I think it’s pretty legit and done very scientifically. Trusting his results is not a bad path. There seems to be differences in the GW and Form setups that need to be sniffed out if you’re going to compare the two.

 

[MagnumHntr]

I wish these people talking publicly on podcasts would actually read the testing protocol and understand the system being used to test. They all start out with false claims just like Aaron did about what is shifting.

 

[4th_point]

Tangential complaint: Spotify kinda jaded me on this podcast if I'm being honest and I'm leery about listening to this episode even though this one sounds like it could be interesting. This podcast is not in my regular rotation but I listened to one of cliff's podcasts on a specific topic some time ago and now spotify CONSTANTLY tries to autoplay this podcast all the time on me which completely turned me off to it. I'll be in the middle of a string of "X" podcast with more episodes to go and suddenly its cliff's podcast. Spotify has done this with a couple others in the past and it just pisses me off and I end up actively avoiding listening to those specific podcasts due to it. I'm probably the anomaly but this is an instance of the "algorithm" shooting an artist/content in the foot by making their content annoying due to unprompted plays.

this is hilarious (although annoying) because I have the same issue with a South Cox episode. the thought of having to hear me say "Hey guys..." every time I open spotify

FYI - You can turn off suggested episodes in Spotify.

I don't think that you can turn off auto play though. So instead of a suggested episode, it'll play one in your library. At least that's how it works on my Android.

 

[Bluumoon]

Shawshank just explains it better…
Andy = RS
Warden = industry

 

[Cliff Gray]

podcast wouldn't allow in my snow Mexico region but think I found the YouTube, early in the chat Cliff's ad for some give away stuff comes on and he called Unknown Munitions... 'Unknown Musicians' at 7:17 mark haha, on purpose? what about Magicians?

it's a glitch in the simulation.... even when I say unknown munitions right now it is coming out "unknown musicians"
jake, i apologize

 

[199p]

I thought it was a good podcast and props to Cliff for letting him speak, though even when it was a long way around to get to the point it was full of great info

One thing I picked up was that FFP is a stronger design, as SFP has an extra variable.
or did I misunderstand what he was saying?

 

[Schmo]

I could argue that testing it on a rifle is actually a more inaccurate way even though it’s all screwed and glued together bc you add in variables like the barrel joint, scope to ring interface, ammo, etc.

The one thing to remember: Aaron saying Leupolds fail less than NF comes from his lab testing. It’s weird that in real life, many guys here have had issues with Leupold and others, that went away when they chose a scope that passed the drop eval. Think about that.

 

[Jhconnected]

The one thing to remember: Aaron saying Leupolds fail less than NF comes from his lab testing. It’s weird that in real life, many guys here have had issues with Leupold and others, that went away when they chose a scope that passed the drop eval. Think about that.

Yes. I have heard similar reports on other forums that concur with RS. Which is why I don’t have a Leupold.

I wasn’t present for the testing so I can’t explain why nor did I do FA on the scopes and setups to determine what failed.

All I can say is what is standard reliability test for essentially all industries. Drop testing from machines.

In testing, you will find not everyone comes to the same conclusion. Everyone is overlooking the point that they could be tested to different impact levels in different setups.

I seem to think people want to call BS on Aaron but since I wasn’t at any testing I’ve read I have to take them all at their word, acknowledge the results, understand drop testing machines are legit ways of testing (I also think Forms testing is valid as well) and make a decision for myself. I did not choose Leupold.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

it's a glitch in the simulation.... even when I say unknown munitions right now it is coming out "unknown musicians"
jake, i apologize

I like Unknown Magicians better.

 

[Savage99]

Drop test machines are THE standard for reliability testing across all engineering industries. Military specs are written around it to test for durability on everything. Companies do it to ensure billions of dollars of equipment can withstand shipping, normal operation, etc etc.

While engineers try to remove all variables, as does Form, you can’t remove all of them.

Maybe the GW test profile doesn’t mimic Form’s so we see differences. Maybe GW got a golden sample that is super robust or maybe RS gets a lemon. Maybe the rings minutely slipped on Form’s. Maybe the barrel joint shifted or the barrel bent slightly.

I could argue that testing it on a rifle is actually a more inaccurate way even though it’s all screwed and glued together bc you add in variables like the barrel joint, scope to ring interface, ammo, etc.

For the record, I’m not shitting on Forms setup. I think it’s pretty legit and done very scientifically. Trusting his results is not a bad path. There seems to be differences in the GW and Form setups that need to be sniffed out if you’re going to compare the two.

Based. Although when I’ve read his field tests it all makes sense where when he encounters a shift he goes back to known good setup and then remounts or whatever to make sure it wasn’t his mounting job (although I doubt it would be).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pistolpete28]

Very entertaining podcast, Aaron definitely is a wealth of knowledge, but he seems extremely arrogant. I understand gunwerks has paved the way in the long range shooting world, but the dude seems extremely douchey.

 

[deerhunter628]

Forms testing might not be perfect, but he seems to be doing more than anybody else. I appreciate the work he is doing and the data he is providing. Im sure Aaron is just using his testing equipment to test the scope from his own company. His procedures might be great and would be nice data to have, but i doubt he will be testing the various scopes that Form is testing.